Talk:Pre-Columbian Andalusian-Americas contact theories

POV
This article does not represent a scientific viewpoint - but a tendentious attempt at rewriting history. There are no conclusive evidence, or even evidence which makes probable, any precolombian contact between africa or arabia and the americas. The present article presents speculation and myth as historic fact, it doesn't cite any opposing viewpoints even though they are the (vast) majority and it doesn't adress the actual historically documented instances of early moslem presence in the americas (all of which are post-colombian). The article is extremely biased and written so tendentiously as to almost appear a hoax.The articles creator removed the disputed tag stating only that his references are not POV, which they clearly are, since no mainstream scholars at all are referenced.Maunus 19:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've moved this article to a title which is less presumptive that such contacts ever took place, and had a go at rewriting the lead in what is intended to be a more balanced and contextual assessment of these claims.


 * I realise that this rewrite is open at the moment to a charge of "hey, no sources!", and I will see if I can track some down which discuss (in the contrary view) these claims are not held in high regard by mainstream historians.


 * However, given that the claims in favour of pre-Columbian Islamic contact are few and far between, and more often than not it seems apparently made by rather peripheral characters (eg the Malian playwright Diwala; I guess Menzies would be an exception) it may be a little difficult in tracking down specific sources which have even bothered to counteract these claims.


 * Even so, I think my rewrite does not state anything which would not be reasonably accepted as true; I would be happy though to debate and consider the point if anyone has objections to it.--cjllw | TALK  02:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Zheng He
7day: If you want to mention he Zheng He map then do it in a way that makes it obvious why such a mention is relevant to the topic. As you wrote it it mentioned neither zheng he or islam or what the relevance of the map is to thinking that moslems were present in precolumbian america. Right now it is a non-sequitur within this article (which is a non sequitur by itself) but I am not going to rewrite it for you so I'll cut it untill you write it in a manner that proves it to be relevant.Maunus 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

it has been done and you are welcome to correct it.7day 09:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

intresting
Interesting topic... --Striver 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

1421
The 1421 section should really be a minor note, with a tag pointing towards the main article. There's no point in having a large section duplicating info from the main 1421 page, though it could definitely be used to expand on the Islam-specific points. WLU 13:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Point taken. I've just moved the tag above to the top of the article. Jagged 85 11:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... the tag is now in the appropriate spot, but what I was referring to was the section itself should be (in my opinion) mostly empty. What should be there is a tag, then perhaps info highlighting the points about the pre-columbian islamic contacts, notably those which are most relevant to the page itself. Apologies if I'm not being clearer. WLU 20:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pseudohistory
The proponents of these theories often DO present them as established fact (see Mroueh, Yucel, et. al. in the Notes and References sections); pseudohistory (i.e. "fake history") is a perfectly accurate description in this context. Furthermore, theories which are frequently repeated or believed by some people but which have no evidence to support them can also be accurately termed pseudohistory (see 1421 hypothesis regarding China). Buster Friendly 22:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're going to use the term "pseudohistory", then you'll need to provide a citation referring to these specific theories as pseudohistory. If not, then that would be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, and I'll have to remove that term from the article in that case. Jagged 85 05:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete this article?
Is there any reason not to delete this article? It doesn't address a coherent topic, and everything covered here is, or should be, addressed in Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories and 1421 hypothesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClovisPt (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Id vote for a merger yes.·Maunus· · ƛ · 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Caliphate of Cordoba was in Spain, not Africa. Jagged 85 (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep this article.Vice regent 18:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Claims for the Mali Empire
There seems to be a major problem with all the articles about Abubakari and Sultan Mansa Musa -- I have tried hard to find a reliable source for the story, and the closest I have come is this Echos of What Lies Behind the 'Ocean of Fogs' in Muslim Historical Narratives which is indeed the source of at least some of the quotes. (The article is a bit odd, last I heard the Amazon wasn't in the midst of the ocean, but fringe writers do tend to cherry pick). The full quote: "its French translation by Gaudefroy-Demombynes says: "In the North of Mali there live white Berbers under their ruler. Their tribes are Antasar, Yantar'aras, Meddusa and Lemtuna ... I asked their ruler Sultan Musa Ibn Amir Hajib (who was in Egypt returning from the pilgrimage): "How had you become ruler?" He replied: "We belong to a family where the son succeeds the father in power. The ruler who preceded me did not believe that it was impossible to reach the extremity of the ocean that encircles the earth (meaning Atlantic), and wanted to reach to that (end) and obstinately persisted in the design. So he equipped two hundred boats full of men, as many others full of gold, water and victuals sufficient enough for several years. He ordered the chief (admiral) not to return until they had reached the extremity of the ocean, or if they had exhausted the provisions and the water. They set out. Their absence extended over a long period, and, at last, only one boat returned. On our questioning, the captain said: 'Prince, we have navigated for a long time, until we saw in the midst of the ocean as if a big river was flowing violently. My boat was the last one; others were ahead of me. As soon as any of them reached this place, it drowned in the whirlpool and never came out. I sailed backwards to escape this current.' But the Sultan would not believe him. He ordered two thousand boats to be equipped for him and for his men, and one thousand more for water and victuals. Then he conferred on me the regency during his absence, and departed with his men on the ocean trip, never to return nor to give a sign of life [5]." No Abubakari mentioned. The article on Abubakari II says "Virtually all that is known of Abubakari II was recorded by the scholar Al-Umari during Kankan Musa I's historic hajj to Mecca. While in Egypt, Musa explained the way that he had inherited the throne after Abubakari II's abdication. He explained that in 1310, the emperor financed the building of 200 vessels of men and another 200 of supplies to explore the limits of the sea that served as empire's western frontier. The vessles were pirogues built from large, hollowed out trees equipped with oars and perhaps sails. The mission was inconclusive, and the only information available on its fate came from a single sailor who refused to follow the other ships once they reached a "river in the sea". According to Musa I, his predecessor was undeterred and launched another fleet with himself at the helm. In 1311, Abubakari II temporarily ceded power to Musa, then serving as his kankoro-sigui or vizier, and departed with a thousand vessels of men and a like number of supplies. After the emperor failed to return, Musa became emperor." Ignoring the difference in the number of boats, can anyone else get that from the first quote? Is Kankan Musa I definitely Sultan Musa Ibn Amir Hajib? "In the North of Mali there live white Berbers under their ruler." doesn't sound like the Emperor of Mali.--Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I have found out thwat is going on. Sultan Musa Ibn Amir Hajib was part of the Mamluk court and met Musa I, who told him the story, which he later passed on. It doesn't mention Abubakari.--Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Al-Masudi's map
I've been discussing this with some map scholars on a mailing list and showed them a copy I found. They don't think there ever was such a map and think someone may have reconstructed it from a description. At least one expert hasn't even heard of such a description. Where "Ard Majhoola" can't be told for sure from the reconstruction if it is one as it is a circular map and we don't really know what the conventions were.

Without a map, what we are left with is a description -- anyone read Arabic? I can get the text, which I am told "It is a mere description of a mythical land while describing the "earliest known populations in the earth". The whole paragraph is put into a mythical context and could never be interpreted as an indication of actual geographic description. So this needs editing but a translation of the Arabic would be very useful first. --Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Spain is not in Africa
Why is there a merger template suggesting this article should be merged into Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories? The Caliphate of Cordoba was in Islamic Spain, not Africa. Since such a merger would be pointless, I am removing the merger template from the article. Jagged 85 (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-title; remove content
The sole reason given for the continued existence of this article is the section on al-Andalus. All other content belongs in Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories or in 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, where, in fact, much of it already exists. Wikipedia does NOT need an article on "pre-Columbian Islamic contact theories" anymore than it needs one on "pre-Columbian Christian contact theories," which could include everything from St. Brendan, an Irish monk, to the Norse, many of whom were Catholic, to various Europeans from the 1400s, etc., etc. The current structure for the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact uses ethnicity/region as a basis for categorizing theories, and this article should follow the same format. I propose removing the Zeng He and Mali Empire content, integrating it into the proper articles, and re-titling this article something like: Pre-Columbian al-Andalus contact theories. ClovisPt (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The move is a good idea, for the reasons stated above. The title might be clearer with the adjective "Andalusian", i.e., Pre-Columbian Andalusian contact theories (instead of "al-Andalus"). I know "Andalusian" is also used to refer to the modern Spanish province, but the article al-Andalus uses it to refer to the Muslim domain in Spain. Shouldn't we? -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Another concern is that the present title (and the one I just proposed) do not specify contact with the Americas. What we're describing in the article is "Theories of pre-Columbian Andalusian contact with the Americas." By analogy with the Africa-Americas article, this should be Pre-Columbian Andalusian-Americas contact theories. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 14:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable. ClovisPt (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and make the change. ClovisPt (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the problem has now been dealt with, I don't see any reason for the neutrality tag to be there anymore, therefore I am removing it from the article. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Spain"... and Portugal?

And what about the story of Mozarabs from Lisbon to Azores Islands, Iceland and Canaries Islands?(or even America?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.170.172 (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge
Hi all. I suggest that this page be merged into Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. Any thoughts? ClovisPt (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

recent deletion of fact tag
The lead has the statement "These theories are generally not credited by mainstream historians, however." I added a tag. Dougweller removed it with "please take this to the talk page and show how this is really contentious - do you really think it's wrong or are you making a point?". I think it unfortunate that he deleted the tag rather than providing the requested citation. Insofar as I was making a point, I seem to have succeeded by showing that the statement concerned was not easily to be sourced. As I (very imperfectly) understand it, the theories concerned have simply been ignored by mainstream historians. On the face of it, there is evidence which requires examination. My question is: has any "mainstream" scholar examined the documents concerned, if not, why not, and if so, what was their conclusion? At the moment we have the unsupported word of wikipedia editors that the documents are effectively to be treated as worthless. This is not a satisfactory way to leave it, and my addition of the tag was drawing attention to that fact. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting issue and I've brought it up at WP:FTN. First, I think you may be reading "generally not credited" as 'discredited' (or maybe not, you do used the word ignored). To me the statement says that these 'theories' have been ignored, given no credit. I don't think that's particularly contentious. And you may be asking editors to prove a negative - if something is so trivial and unlikely as to be ignored by mainstream scholarship, then it may not have drawn enough attention for anyone to comment on that lack of attention. And to not convey that somehow in this or any other article does not help our readers. How would we get over this bind if the statement can't be sourced? Dougweller (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case I see no justification for either of the words "trivial" or "unlikely". On reflection I can't believe that the documents concerned have been completely ignored, and I hope to search a bit. The justification of the tag "citation needed" has clearly been totally established. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

any actual proponents?
It is interesting how the article manages to go on about "proponents cite", "proponents assert", without ever stopping to name any actual proponent. From what I gather, proponents are This falls short of WP:NOTE by miles. We either need decent references that this is even a topic, or we will need to collapse it into the larger article about "pre-Columbian contact" fringecruft in general. --dab (𒁳) 16:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Muslim historian Abu Bakr Ibn Umar Al-Gutiyya (no reference, no year)
 * American computer consultant and poet Amir Nashid Ali Muhammad (1998), published with an American Muslim propaganda outfit
 * possibly, judging from the article title, Mohammed Hamidullah (1968), at the time apparently a member of the Muslim Students' Association of the United States and Canada.
 * perhaps, who knows, Agha Hakim, Al-Mirza, Riyaadh Al-Ulama, apparently an Arabic language source (no year), no idea what is in there, when or where it was published, and what exactly the reference is supposed to substantiate.

ah wait, I missed the best candidate. I think this article boils down to saying that somebody considered the possibility once, in the 1960s. The end. This will make for a one-liner or very short paragraph at the "pre-Columbian contact" article. --dab (𒁳) 16:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hui-lin Li (1960-1961), Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies.
 * I agree. If no one can demonstrate a level of notability such that this topic deserves its own article, I intend to move ahead with a merge into pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. Of course, I could still use some help figuring out what content from this article to preserve and move into the larger article. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one, marine biologist Barry Fell, Saga America, Three Rivers Press (1983). Apparently, according to Fell, pretty much everybody sailed to the Americas, all the time. The Muslims pretty much as soon as they got the Rashidun caliphate going. Definitely a case for the general review of "pre-Columbian contact" crankery over at the main article.

As far as I can tell, we shold keep Hui-lin Li (1961) in any case (who, you will note, just presents "the case for", without posing as an all-out "proponent". Then we have Fell (1983), and perhaps we can mention Amir Nashid Ali Muhammad (1998), but this one is an unnotable amateur with amazon sales rank 2.5M, so mention of this one will be more of an optional extra. --dab (𒁳) 16:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I see we also have an article As-Sunnah Foundation of America. If that article is based on WP:ORG we can also mention that this organization celebrated a "millennium of the Muslims arrival to the Americas" in 1996. But my suspicion is that the As-Sunnah article is itself vanity cruft and should be deleted. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing this in a hurry, I found a little walled garden surrounding Hisham Kabbani. In any case, the "millennium of the Muslims arrival to the Americas" does not appear to be of any relevance to the ASFA, which was founded in 1997, i.e. after the supposed "millennium". --dab (𒁳) 16:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is quite apparent from the article that one of the proponents is likely to be Tabish Khair, as given in the first reference. It would help if the discussion here stuck to the point and took the matter seriously. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, in that reference Tabish Khair makes it clear that he is not a proponent of such ideas, but instead mentions them in passing. This discussion has been both to the point and serious, as far as I can tell. ClovisPt (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for supplying the Tabish Khair link; I've put it into the article too. I haven't yet read his book, but I have it on order, so I'll be able to verify what you say (I don't doubt that you are right). While on the subject of links, are we sure that the cited author "Mohammed Hamidullah" is the same as the Muhammad Hamidullah to whom he has been linked? Looking at the biography of the latter, I'm inclined to doubt it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The book is available on google books, try this |link. You may be correct on the mistaken name linking; I can't tell for sure. ClovisPt (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger/In summary
I'm inclined to include information from the interpretation of the Sung Document by Hui-lin Li (1961), and remove the other content, which as far as I can tell is sourced to the kind of fringe references that completely fail to demonstrate notability. I'll merge that information into the main article (Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact), redirect this article, and possibly work on improving the Sung Document article a little. I'm willing to wait a little to see if anyone can make a compelling case not to do so. Thanks to all for their time and attention to this article. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't do that. The article in its present form is not satisfactory, as we all agree. It seems clear, however, that apart from the Sung document there are two Arabic primary sources, those of Al-Masudi and Muhammad al-Idrisi respectively, which say something about early explorations of the Atlantic. What is apparently lacking is reliable secondary sources, but I think it premature to suppose that none exist. In any case it would be more helpful to continue to state the existence of the Arab geographies, while being cautious about descriptions of their content and even more cautious about possible interpretations. Omitting them altogether would imply that they are valueless or of no importance; merging the articles would tend to suggest that all accounts of early Atlantic exploration have the same status as each other. There are no grounds for either assumption. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you on a couple of points. First of all, the main article does not imply that all ideas are equally valid - it endeavors to cover those presented in reliable sources. Secondly, this article, and a summary of most of this article's contents, have been sitting around on Wikipedia for quite a while without the secondary sources you mention presenting themselves. For what it's worth, I haven't found any myself.  It has become clear that this article does not come close to meeting any of the notability requirements we normally expect topics to have to be worth their own article on Wikipedia.  I'm going to go ahead with the merger, and until the coverage of this topic in reliable sources begins to increase, I honestly expect the merger to stand.
 * In a side note, may I suggest that you direct your energies towards the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact article? It could use more reliable sources, checking of current sources, and could certainly be expanded upon if there is a notable area that has been missed.  Respectfully, ClovisPt (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)